Re: Stylesheet association
Dave Peterson writes:
| At 6:09 PM 3/12/97, Terry Allen wrote:
| > <empty/>
| >is one of the worst warts on the present spec, inviting error
| >and difficult to explain ("<IMG> works fine in HTML, <anchor>
| >works fine in SGML, what's the problem?" "Conformance with SGML.")
| Cheap shot? It's not conformance with SGML that's the problem.
| It's that with HTML we have, if not a fixed set of element types,
| at least a short-term-fixed set of element types declared EMPTY.
| Since those types are known ahead of time by name, that much of
| the "HTML DTD" is built into every HTML parser. It's the fact
| that XML wants to continue to permit EMPTY element types, doesn't
| want to pre-specify their names, and wants to parse without reference
| to a DTD that forces XML to differentiate between the tag for empty elements
| that don't use an end-tag and the start-tag of elements that do use
Not a cheap shot at all. My point is exactly that an XML instance
without a style sheet, an applet that interprets the semantics of
the GIs, a DTD, or some other document that collects that and
similiar information is uninterpretable. As some other piece is
required to interpret XML markup, the opportunity exists to insert
a summary of EMPTY GIs there - an idea mooted last Fall in the
context of PIs.
I am more concerned about packaging and delivery in general than
with <empty/>; I brought it up only to show that packaging and
delivery have implications for aspects of XML that have already
been decided - but could be reconsidered before everyone's feet
are set in concrete. Now's the time.
Terry Allen Electronic Publishing Consultant tallen[at]sonic.net
specializing in Web publishing, SGML, and the DocBook DTD
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html